9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption from predeposit. The way Commissioner (Appeals) has conducted the appeal, shows ignorance of the material available on record. The condition of pre-deposit get satisfied with recovery of the amount of duty which is much more than 7.5% of the duty imposed on the petitioner herein. Therefore, dismissal of appeal in reference to Section 129E of the Act of 1962 cannot be said to be proper. The impugned order is thus set aside with remand of the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for its hearing on merit. - Petition allowed by way of remand - D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 347/2016 - - - Dated:- 22-4-2016 - M. N. Bhandari And Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ. For the Petitioner : Sameer Jain, Mahi Yadav For the Respondent : Vinay Mathur, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o satisfy requirement of pre deposit. Learned counsel Mr. Vinay Mathur, appearing for the Revenue, has contested the case. It is submitted that chance of hearing under Section 128 is given only when the appeal is admitted. In the instant case, the petitioner failed to comply condition of Section 129E of the Act of 1961 thus, the appeal was not maintainable, hence, rightly dismissed by the Commissioner (appeal). We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. The petition preferred an appeal to challenge the order of Deputy Commissioner Customs. An application was filed to seek exemption from pre-deposit as entire amount of Customs duty has been recovered prior to filling of appeal. It was by encashment of B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appeal in reference to Section 129E of the Act of 1962 cannot be said to be proper. The impugned order dated 13.10.2015 is thus set aside with remand of the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for its hearing on merit. The parties are directed to remain present before Commissioner (Appeals) on 2nd May, 2015. The way the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), a cost of ₹ 20,000/- is imposed on revenue. The cost would be paid within a period of one month from today. The department would however be at liberty to recover the cost from the then Commissioner (Appeals). It is looking to the fact that the way order has been passed needs to be deprecated and, as an outcome of the said order, the litigation has co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
